Main Article

Amersham displayed no political independence from the neighbouring gentry, the leading interests at the beginning of the period all owning land nearby. A poll from 1689 indicated 143 voters in a three-way contest between William Cheyne, son of Lord Newhaven (Charles Cheyne*), of Chesham Bois, Sir William Drake of Shardeloes, lord of the manor, and Edmund Waller of Beaconsfield, who presumably benefited from the large Dissenting presence in the borough. Drake and Waller emerged victorious. The franchise, which had been disputed in the Restoration era, and was to be so again, was not an issue, all agreeing that it lay in the inhabitants not receiving alms. The returning officer (the constable) was chosen at the lord of the manor’s court, thereby giving the Drakes a crucial advantage.2

In the 1690 election Cheyne removed to Appleby, leaving Waller and Drake unopposed, despite their differing political outlooks. The death of Drake later that year saw the return of his aged father-in-law, Hon. William Montagu, doubtless in a move to protect the interest of Drake’s teenage grandson, Montagu Drake. In 1695 Cheyne re-entered the fray with the backing of ‘all the chief of the town’, only to be defeated by Waller, ‘who carried it clear’, and Montagu Drake, who was now of age. Complaints were made that ‘Cheyne had foul play and yet lost by only six voices’, but there was no petition to the Commons.3

With Waller’s espousal of Quakerism and the death of Montagu Drake shortly before the dissolution, both seats at Amersham required new Members in 1698. Anne Nicholas felt that (Sir) John Verney (2nd Bt. and later Lord Fermanagh) should stand under the Drake banner, utilizing the influence of Francis Drake of Woodstock Park (Montagu Drake’s uncle), whom she believed ‘has a better interest there than ever his nephew had’. However, Francis Drake had been on poor terms with his nephew and appears to have exercised no influence at all on the latter’s father-in-law, Sir John Garrard, 3rd Bt., who took over the management of the interest and was persuaded to stand, possibly against his inclinations ‘by a certain Lord’ and another ‘very great Lord’, after at first declining. The other candidates were William Cheyne, who had recently succeeded his father as Viscount Newhaven (though he was invariably known as Lord Cheyne), and Sir Roger Hill*, who was campaigning not only before the dissolution, but before Drake had been buried. At the election Cheyne and Garrard were returned, although Hill felt confident that he could unseat Garrard on petition, or perhaps replace Cheyne if the latter, as expected, also won the county contest. Thus, it was reported on 30 July that Cheyne would ‘bring in Hill’, and on 4 Aug. that he would set up ‘a foreigner there that has lately been baffled in another place’, William Jennens*, one of Montagu Drake’s trustees. Cheyne was duly returned for the county in August and was reportedly continuing to treat at Amersham on Hill’s behalf, mainly ‘because it was not for him to suffer two of the family of Shardeloes, which is Drake’s seat, to be chosen for that town’. However, by November Cheyne was becoming disillusioned with Hill: ‘he has spent one £50 already and will not spend another, and seems to take more pleasure in losing his election bids than others do in succeeding’. Hill petitioned on 12 Dec., alleging that Garrard had paid £10 a vote, and ten days later Cheyne chose to sit for the county, thereby precipitating a by-election. Just after Christmas, Cheyne and Hill entertained the voters at Blois, reportedly excluding those they could not persuade to be for Hill. Nevertheless, the by-election on 2 Jan. 1699 saw Garrard secure the return of John Drake, another of Montagu Drake’s uncles, and on the 16th Garrard’s return was confirmed with Hill’s petition being dismissed as ‘frivolous and vexatious’.4

The January 1701 election saw Garrard and Cheyne returned, only for two by-elections to be precipitated in quick succession, the first following Garrard’s death and the second when Cheyne again opted to sit for the county. Garrard was replaced by John Drake in February and Cheyne by Garrard’s brother, Samuel, in March. This session saw an attempt on 7 Mar. 1701 by some of the inhabitants in Amersham to ‘defend their rights’, in response to a decision of the Commons in the previous Parliament to limit the right of election to those inhabitants paying scot and lot. Although the Commons refused to hear their petition (the petitioners having in fact agreed to the traditional franchise on 16 Jan. 1699), the dispute was indicative of the future course of elections in the borough. In November 1701, Cheyne and Drake were returned, defeating Hill, who petitioned without success. In 1702, Cheyne and Drake were again returned, with Garrard replacing Cheyne when the latter chose to sit for the county.5

In the highly charged atmosphere of 1705, Lord Cheyne’s election along with Garrard was greeted with triumph by one Tory newsletter: ‘the last a Tacker, the other a well-wisher to them’. However, the contest was a fierce one as they were challenged by Sir Thomas Webster, 1st Bt.*, who was backed by Lord Wharton (Hon. Thomas*). Robert Harley* noted before the election that the Waller interest now lay with Edmund’s brother, Dr Stephen Waller, but it is not known on whose side, if any, it was deployed. Whig determination to punish the Tackers ensured that the election would be disputed before the Commons. Lord Halifax (Charles Montagu*) informed the Duchess of Marlborough that Webster had carried it by 27, but that the constable had returned Cheyne and Garrard. Webster petitioned on 2 Nov. and the scene was set for a memorable trial of strength between Whig and Tory in the House. Despite Lord Treasurer Godolphin’s (Sidney†) assurances to Harley that Cheyne was not in danger, when the committee of elections met on 19 Nov. Garrard carried it by 11 with the help of several Court Tories. Mrs Burnet felt that some Whigs were unwilling to undermine their own elections by voting against a scot-and-lot franchise, which Garrard had made the basis of his case. The full House considered the case on 1 Dec., the report making explicit the declaration of Webster’s counsel that ‘they should not bring in question my Lord Cheyne’s election’. The crucial division, that the franchise lay with those householders paying scot and lot, was carried by 197 votes to 168, and Garrard and Cheyne were then declared duly elected without a division.6

The narrowing of the franchise seems to have taken the sting out of elections in Amersham. No one challenged John Drake when he replaced Lord Cheyne in 1707, or Garrard and Duncombe in 1708 or 1710. The borough addresses to the Queen in both 1712 and 1713 were noticeably Tory in tone. Thus it was not surprising that two Tories were returned in 1713. On this occasion, the borough was used by Lord Fermanagh as insurance in case the county contest went amiss, although as late as April he could write: ‘as to being secure at Amersham I know nothing about it yet’. However, on 5 May Cheyne wrote that Fermanagh was ‘certain of being chosen’, and Fermanagh’s preparations were thorough as it cost him over £100 to ensure his return. He was somewhat piqued, therefore, when, having chosen to sit for the county, he was replaced by James Herbert II rather than ‘a relation of mine’, his son, Ralph†, whom many had expected would replace his father. In the more difficult circumstances of 1715 Fermanagh retreated to Amersham, where his own treating (nearly £70) was supplemented by Lord Cheyne’s from Blois, all of which was agreed with Montagu Garrard Drake, who had taken over his family’s interest in time to be elected in 1713.7